Technocracy Triumphant — Manitoba Court Cancels The Charter Rights You Thought You Had



The Canadian Red Ensign


Technocracy Triumphant  — Manitoba  Court Cancels The Charter Rights You Thought You Had

Taking the attitude “who am I to judge” is, under many circumstances, appropriate and admirable.   There is one circumstance, however, when it is extremely inappropriate and reprehensible.   That is when you are a justice of Her Majesty’s bench before whom one person or group has brought another person or group, complaining that the latter has injured them in violation of the law and asking you for redress of their wrongs.   If you happen to be in that situation then your job – your only job – is to hear the case, weight the evidence, and issue a ruling, in short – to judge.   To plead humility as an excuse for not doing so is to abandon your duty.

Earlier this year, in the late spring, Chief Justice Glenn Joyal of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba heard evidence that lawyers representing the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms presented on behalf of the Gateway Bible Baptist Church in Thompson, along with six other congregations, two ministers and one other individual in two related but distinct constitutional challenges to the provincial bat flu public health orders. (1)   One of these challenged the sweeping powers with insufficient accountability that had been given to the Chief Public Health Officer.   The other challenged portions of the public health orders themselves on the grounds that they violated the fundamental freedoms named in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in such a way as could not be justified by the “reasonable limitations” clause of the Charter’s Section 1.    The evidence in these challenges was heard in May.   After taking the summer to deliberate or take a vacation or go for the world’s record in thumb twiddling or whatever, last week on the twenty-first of October Chief Justice Joyal finally ruled in these cases.   For the purposes of distinction the ruling with regards to the constitutionality of the powers of the Chief Public Health Officer will be called “the first ruling” and the ruling with regards to the constitutionality of portions of the orders will be called “the second ruling”.

The Chief Justice ruled against the applicants in both cases.    In one sense, however, the second ruling could be called a non-ruling.   In paragraph 292 we find the following:

I say that while recognizing and underscoring that fundamental freedoms do not and ought not to be seen to suddenly disappear in a pandemic and that courts have a specific responsibility to affirm that most obvious of propositions.

This is very good and right.   The problem is that the next sentence begins with a “but.”   Apart from the bad grammar involved – Chief Justice Joyal is old enough to have still had the rule never to begin a sentence with a conjunction like “but” drilled into him in grade school – buts have this nasty habit of leading into material that completely negates everything that precedes the “but”.   Here is what followed:  

But just as I recognize that special responsibility of the courts, given the evidence adduced by Manitoba (which I accept as credible and sound), so too must I recognize that the factual underpinnings for managing a pandemic are rooted in mostly scientific and medical matters. Those are matters that fall outside the expertise of courts. Although courts are frequently asked to adjudicate disputes involving aspects of medicine and science, humility and the reliance on credible experts are in such cases, usually required. In other words, where a sufficient evidentiary foundation has been provided in a case like the present, the determination of whether any limits on rights are constitutionally defensible is a determination that should be guided not only by the rigours of the existing legal tests, but as well, by a requisite judicial humility that comes from acknowledging that courts do not have the specialized expertise to casually second guess the decisions of public health officials, which decisions are otherwise supported in the evidence.

This constitutes an abdication of the very responsibility he had just acknowledged.   If fundamental freedoms still exist in a pandemic, and it is the court’s special responsibility to affirm this, this means that the court cannot defer to the public health authorities, the medical experts, on the question of whether their own measures are reasonable and justified.   If civil authority A is accused of trampling on the public’s fundamental freedoms, and the court defers to the expertise of civil authority A on the question of whether the latter’s actions are reasonable and justified, this translates into “civil authority A can do whatever he sees fit, there are no limits on his powers to which the court will hold him accountable”.    Indeed, saying that courts should be guided not just by the “rigours of the existing legal tests” but a “humility” that forbids them to “casually second guess” the decisions of public health officials is tantamount to saying that medical science is a higher authority than the law.  (2)

In the sections of the ruling that immediately follow the paragraph from which we have quoted, we see what this “judicial humility” looks like in practice.   In these pages Chief Justice Joyal considers the question of whether the public health orders meet the standards of the Oakes test.    The Oakes test was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986 to determine whether legislation or other government action that infringes upon Charter rights and freedoms is nevertheless permitted under the “reasonable limitations” clause.     To pass, the infringement must first be shown to serve a “pressing and substantial objective”.   Second, the infringement must be show to be proportional, which means that it must a) be shown to be rationally connected to the objective, b) be shown to only minimally impair the right(s) and/or freedom(s) in question and c) be shown to provide a benefit to the public that is greater than the harm done by impairing the right(s) and/or freedom(s).  (3)  For each of the stages of this test, the Chief Justice essentially takes the position that because Brent Roussin decided, after weighing all the information available to him, that each public health order he issued was what was necessary at the time, therefore the orders meet the standards of the test.    Such a ruling in effect declares that Brent Roussin, as Chief Public Health Officer, is above the law insofar as he is acting in the capacity of his office.   If the court defers to him as to whether his actions in the capacity of his office meet the standards of constitutionality set in the Oakes test or not, then he is above the Oakes test and the Charter and cannot be held accountable to either.

The ramifications of this extend far beyond the issues pertaining to the public health orders and the pandemic.  What it means is that while we remain in form the country that we were, governed by a parliament under the reign of a constitutional monarch, in which Common Law and Charter nominally protect our rights and freedoms, in actual practice we have become a medical technocracy.

Anyone inclined to think that this is a good thing, or even a tolerable thing, is invited to consider the words of C. S. Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.  (God in the Dock, 1948)

This description fits the rule of medical technocrats to a tee.  

That a de facto medical technocracy is inimical to the freedom that permeates our parliamentary form of government, our constitutional monarchy, and the Common Law is the real issue at the heart of the other challenge.   This was the challenge to the constitutionality of the provincial legislature’s having named Brent Roussin dictator, with Jazz Atwal as his Master of Horse, for the duration of the pandemic, which had to be framed, of course, as a challenge to the sections of the Manitoba Public Health Act (2009) which provided for this situation.   These are sections 13 and 67.   Section 67 empowers the Chief Public Health Officer to take special measures if he “reasonably believes” that “a serious and immediate threat to public health exists because of an epidemic or threatened epidemic of a communicable disease” which “cannot be prevented, reduced or eliminated” without the special measures.   Section 13 allows him to delegate his own power under the Act to a deputy.  

Chief Justice Joyal ruled that this two-fold delegation of power, first from the legislature to the Chief Public Health Officer, second from the latter to his deputy was constitutional.   In the course of explaining his decision he made a number of statements that suggest a troubling sympathy with the technocratic impulse of the age.   He gave his approval to the province’s claim that with the “emergence of new threats such as SARS, West Nile, monkey pox and the avian flu” it was important that the government focus on the “modernization of the PHA”.   The modernization of the Public Health Act, that is to say, bringing it in line with contemporary trends around the world, means making it more technocratic.   In this context the Chief Justice asserted with regards to the centralization of the public health system in the person of the Chief Public Health Officer that:

the act sets out the powers afforded to public health officials to address communicable diseases and importantly, it also constrains those powers so as to ensure an appropriate balance between individual rights and the protection of public health  (first ruling, 12).

Does it ensure such an appropriate balance?   As this is the quod erat demonstrandum, this forthright assertion of it would seem to be a classic example of petitio principia, especially when we consider the weakness of everything that was then put forward in support of the assertion. After providing quotations from speeches in the legislative assembly at the time the new Public Health Act was being debated that show that the legislators acknowledged the need for such a balance, the Chief Justice finally specified the constraints this Act supposedly places on the powers it gives to the Chief Public Health Officer (first ruling, 17).   Not a single one of these is a real check that prevents the office of the Chief Public Health Officer from being corrupted into a medical technocratic tyranny by the excessive emergency power vested in it.

The first of these is that the official must believe there is a public health emergency that requires special measures to be taken.   The third is that the orders require the prior approval of the Minister of Health.   The fourth is the stipulation in section 3 of the Public Health Act that the restrictions on rights and freedoms of the special measures be as few as possible, the equivalent to the “minimal impairment” requirement of the Oakes test.  In practice, the attitude of deferral to the specialized medical expertise of the Chief Public Health Officer on the part of the Minister of Health ensures that none of these constitutes a real constraint.   The sixth, which is that the Chief Public Health Officer must be a physician, is a limit on who the Minister of Health can appoint to the office not a limit on use of the powers of that office by the officeholder.   The seventh and final “constraint” pertains only to the secondary matter of the sub delegation of the Chief Public Health Officer’s powers to his deputy.  This leaves the second and fifth, both of which warrant special comment and so have been reserved for last.

The second “constraint” is that under subsection 2 of section 67 “the types of orders that can be made are clearly delineated”.   This is true, but the types so delineated are so extensive that this is not much of a limitation even without taking into consideration how much further deferral to the expertise of the Chief Public Health Officer would stretch them.

The fifth is the stipulation in subsection 4 of section 67 that “an order requiring a person to be immunized cannot be enforced if the person objects.”    Although this looks like a real constraint on the Chief Public Health Officer’s powers, for several months now he has gotten away with making a total mockery of this stipulation by doing everything short of strapping objectors down and forcing the needle into them to compel them to be “immunized”.

Therefore, quite to the contrary of what Chief Justice Joyal claims (first ruling, 18) these constraints provide no real protection against the danger of the powers the Public Health Act confers upon the Chief Public Health Officer in a public health emergency being used to run roughshod over our rights and freedoms. Whatever the intention of the legislators in 2009, the Public Health Act fails to provide an appropriate balance between individual rights and the protection of public health.   Instead, it places all the weight on the side of the latter. 

It needs to be stated here that the need for an appropriate balance between individual rights and freedoms on the one hand and the public good on the other is a truism.   The art of statecraft – politics in the best sense of the word – could be said to reduce to finding just this balance.   The problem, at least in Canada, is that for decades now we have only ever seemed to have heard this truism trotted out whenever someone is insisting that individual rights and freedoms need to make cessions to the public good.   Balance requires that there also be cessions from the public good to individual rights and freedoms.   Indeed, since the vast majority of decisions that need to be made in any complex society have to do with the good of individuals and small groups, rather than the good of the society as a whole, and it is individual rights and freedoms that ensure that those making such decisions are the ones most competent to do so, which with only rare exceptions means the individuals and small groups directly concerned, balance arguably requires far more cessions to individual rights and freedoms from the public good, than the other way around.

The basic assumption of technocracy is contrary to all of this.   This is the assumption that technical knowledge – the kind of specialized knowledge in any field that qualifies one as an expert – renders one competent to make decisions for other people if the expert’s field at all touches upon those decisions.   This assumption is laughably false – technical expertise in one field does not translate into technical expertise in another field, much less all fields, and it is rare that a decision requires information from only one field.   The most technical knowledge ought to qualify an expert for is to advise people in the making of their own decisions, not to make those decisions for them.   Indeed, were we to assume that the greater an individual’s expertise is in one specialized field, the greater his ignorance will be in all others, and the more utterly incompetent he will be at making decisions for himself, let alone other people, our assumption would be wrong, but a lot less wrong than the assumption inherent in technocracy.

Technocracy is odious enough when it takes the form of the army of civil servants, passing the endless regulations that boss people around and tell them what to do in their own homes and how to run their own businesses, by which Liberal Prime Ministers have so effectively circumvented the constraints of our Crown-in-Parliament constitution in order to impose their will upon Canadians.   A medical technocracy enacted in a public health emergency is far worse.   Throughout history, mankind has been much more often plagued by tyranny than by insufficient government power, by too many rules than by too few, and the exploitation of emergencies, real or manufactured, and the fear they engender in the public, is the normal means whereby a tyrant seizes unconstitutional power.   For this reason it is imperative than  in any emergency, those empowered to deal with the emergency be subjected to even greater scrutiny and held to even stricter accountability, than in ordinary circumstances.   This is the opposite of the attitude of deference that Chief Justice Joyal contended for in 281-283 of the second ruling, and which he reiterated in the first sentence of 292, “In the context of this deadly and unprecedented pandemic, I have determined that this is most certainly a case where a margin of appreciation can be afforded to those making decisions quickly and in real time for the benefit of the public good and safety.” (4)

This deference is fatal to the court’s role as the guardian of fundamental freedoms.    Chief Justice Joyal acknowledged (284), as, in fact, did the province, that these freedoms were violated, and that therefore the onus is upon the government to justify the violation.  (5)  When the court gives this “margin of appreciation” to “those making decisions quickly and in real time”, however, is it possible for the province to fail to meet this onus in the court’s eyes?

Consider the arguments that the province made that it met the “minimal impairment” requirement of the Oakes test.   Chief Justice Joyal reproduced (303) the reasons the province offered in support of this contention from paragraph 52 of their April 12, 2021 brief.  Reason c) begins with “Unlike some other jurisdictions, there was no curfew imposed or a ‘shelter in place’ order that would prevent people from leaving their home other than for limited reasons”.   That you cannot validly justify your own actions by pointing to the worse actions of someone else is something that anyone with even the most basic of training in logical reasoning should immediately recognize.   The same reason includes the sentences “It was still possible to gather with family and friends at indoor and outdoor public places, up to the gathering limit of 5 people” and “An exception was also made for people who live on their own to allow one person to visit.”   Offering these as “reasons” why the public health order forbidding people to meet with anyone other than members of their own household in their own homes for over three months only “minimally impaired” our freedoms of association and assembly is adding insult to injury.  That is called throwing people crumbs, not keeping your infringement on their freedoms to a minimum.   “Minimally impair” is not supposed to mean to impair the freedom to the point that it is minimal.

Reason e) which pertains to freedom of religion is no better.   The province declared that there was an “attempt to accommodate religious services”.   The first example of this that they gave is that “Religious services could still be delivered remotely indoors, or outdoors in vehicles”.   It seems rather rich of the province to offer the latter up as proof that they tried to only minimally impair freedom of religion when, in fact, the churches that offered such services had to fight to obtain that concession. 

Had Brent Roussin forgotten that he had initially banned drive-in services when he ordered churches to close in the so-called “circuit break” last fall?  

Or rather had he remembered that it was Chief Justice Joyal who on the fifth of December last year had ruled that drive-in services were in violation of the public health orders before he, that is Roussin, amended the orders to allow for these services?  

Either way it is rather disingenuous of him to make this allusion in this context.  

The next sentence is even worse.    “As well, individual prayer and reflection was permitted.”    So, because he didn’t ban people from praying by themselves in the privacy of their own homes, which even officially Communist countries never attempted, he is to be credited for only “minimally impairing” our freedom of religion by forbidding us to obey God’s commandment to forsake not the assembly of ourselves, forbidding us to sing God’s praises as a community of faith, and forbidding us from partaking of the Holy Sacrament?   Indeed, what this sentence tells us is that the person who wrote it thinks a) that individuals need the permission of government to pray and reflect in private, b) that it is within the powers of government to withhold such permission and forbid private prayer and reflection, and c) government’s not having done so means that their violations of our freedom of religion and worship have been minimal and reasonable.      

Any sort of cognitive filter that allows a Chief Justice to look at this sort of nonsense and conclude from it that the province has met its onus of justifying its impairment of our fundamental freedoms as the minimum necessary under the circumstances is clearly a dysfunctional filter that ought to be immediately discarded.

Indeed, the province’s arguments illustrate the point made above about technocracy being inimical to freedom, constitutional government, and the balance between individual right and public good.   Technical knowledge or specialized knowledge in a field of expertise, as stated above, does not translate into expertise in another field, much less expertise in all fields.  Indeed, it tends towards a certain kind of deficiency in general reasoning that could be regarded as a sort of tunnel vision.   It is called déformation professionelle in French and is similar to what is called the Law of the Instrument, illustrated in Abraham Maslow’s proverb about how if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.   A physician’s technical expertise is in the field of medicine – treating sickness and injury and promoting health.   He will therefore be inclined to subordinate everything else to the goals of his profession.   In an epidemic or pandemic, this inclination will be all the more exaggerated.  To a medical expert in such a situation, the answer to the question of what public health orders constitute the minimal necessary restrictions on fundamental freedoms will look very different than it does to those who do not share this narrow focus.   

Consider the words that George Grant in his important discussion (Technology and Justice, 1986) of the implications of the increasing technologization of society identified as encapsulating spirit of technological thought, J. Robert Oppenheimer’s “when you see that something is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it.”  The significance of these words is that the technological mind is inclined to reject external limitations, such as those of ethics, that stand between it and the actual doing of whatever it finds itself capable.    Modern medical thinking is thoroughly technological and Oppenheimer’s thought, translated into that of a physician and epidemiologist overseeing a pandemic, would be “when you see that you can slow the spread of the disease by doing A, you go ahead and do A”.   A might have a thousand other effects, all negative, but the mind that prioritizes slowing the spread of an epidemic over all other concerns can acknowledge this and still come to the conclusion that the benefit outweighs the harm, demonstrating that its ability to make calculations of this sort is seriously impaired.  (6)

It is absolutely essential that those charged with the duty of protecting our fundamental rights and freedoms and holding government to its constitutional limits, recognize how the very nature of medical expertise tends towards the skewing of the medical expert’s perspective in this way and that therefore he is the last person to whose opinion government ministers and judges should defer in determining whether public health orders infringing upon fundamental freedoms are constitutionally justified out of necessity.

For the courts to fail to recognize this is for the courts to shirk their duty and acquiesce as our country succumbs to the tyranny of technocracy. (7)

 (1)   The applicants were the churches: Gateway Bible Baptist Church (Thompson), Pembina Valley Baptist Church (Winkler), Redeeming Grace Bible Church (Morden), Grace Covenant Church (Altona), Slavic Baptist Church, Christian Church of Morden, Bible Baptist Church (Brandon); ministers: Tobias Tissen (pastor of Church of God, Restoration in Sarto, just south of Steinbach) and Thomas Rempel (deacon of Redeeming Grace Bible Church); and individual:  Ross MacKay.

(2)   Tom Brodbeck’s editorial commenting on these rulings for the local Liberal Party propaganda rag – or paper of record, depending upon your perspective – was given the headline “Case Closed, Science Wins”.

(3)   There is an unfortunate tautology here in that proportionality is the term used for both all three stages of the second step of the test taken together and the third stage of the same.

(4)   The pandemic is “unprecedented” only in the sense that the measures taken to combat it have been unprecedented in their extremity.   The Spanish Flu which ended about a century before the bat flu pandemic began killed between 25-50 million people.   The bat flu has killed about 5 million over the course of a similar span of time.   Not only is the total of the Spanish Flu much larger than that of the bat flu, it represents a much larger percentage of the world’s population which was considerably smaller at the time.   It took place at a time when health care and medical treatment options were far more limited than they are today, and yet public health orders never came close to what they are today, despite the earlier pandemic having started in a time of war when people were already accustomed to emergency restrictions.

(5)  Many of the news articles reporting on these rulings have been extremely misleading.   Several have reported that the Chief Justice ruled that no Charter rights were violated.   This is true only in the sense that there is a distinction between rights and freedoms and that the Chief Justice ruled against there having been a violation of Section 7 and Section 15 rights.   With regards to Section 2 fundamental freedoms, however, he ruled – and the province admitted – that these had been violated, and that therefore there was a burden of justification on the government to prove these violations to be constitutional in accordance with Section 1.  As the discussion of Section 2 was by far the most important part of the case, to summarize the entire ruling as if it were all about the Sections 7 and 15 challenges, is to utterly distort it.  

(6)   Suppose that a virus is spreading which, if unchecked, will cause 10 000 deaths.   The public health officer, if he takes Action B, can prevent the epidemic and all of those deaths.   However, Action B will itself cause 10 000 other deaths.   The number of deaths will be the same whether action is taken or not.   Should the public health officer take this action or do nothing?   It would be odious to attempt to resolve the dilemma by comparing the value of the 10 000 lives lost the one way, with the value of the 10 000 lives lost the other.   The person who makes the case for the public health officer’s taking Action B, therefore, would have to reason along the lines that since it is the public health officer’s duty to combat epidemics and save lives threatened by disease, and the intent behind Action B would be to save the 10 000 threatened by the epidemic not kill the other 10 000, Action B should be taken and the 10 000 lost to it considered collateral damage.   The person who would argue the other side would point out that the 10 000 lost to the epidemic would die of natural causes, that the 10 000 lost as a result of Action B would die as the direct consequence of human action, and that the human moral culpability for taking an action that directly results in a death is greater than the human moral culpability for not taking an action that would prevent a death by natural cause, ergo it is worse to take Action B than to not do so.   Which of these two arguments is the most persuasive.  I would suggest that for people who are both normal and capable of rational, human, moral thought, the second of the two arguments is likely to be the most persuasive, and that those persuaded by the first of the two arguments are most likely to be found among medical experts.

(7)   That technological science was leading us to a universal technocracy which would be the worst of all tyrannies was a warning sounded frequently throughout the Twentieth Century by such thinkers as Jacques Ellul (The Technological Society, 1954, Perspectives on Our Age, 1981), C. S. Lewis (The Abolition of Man, 1943, That Hideous Strength, 1945), and René Girard (I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning, 1999).   In Canada, George Grant played the role of Cassandra on this theme, which runs through his entire corpus of work from Philosophy in the Mass Age (1959) to Technology and Justice (1986).   It was central to the thesis of his 1965 jeremiad Lament for a Nation that by succumbing to the technologically driven capitalism of America, Canada was losing the pre-liberal traditions that informed her founding, and would be drawn like the rest of the world into the “universal homogenous state”, a technocracy that the ancients had predicted would be the ultimate tyranny.   Technological science, as he argued in the first essay of Technology and Justice, begins as man’s mastery of nature, but progresses into man’s master of himself, which translates into his mastery of other people.   He did not shrink from implicating modern medicine along with other more obvious culprits in this.POSTED BY GERRY T. NEAL 

EXCLUSIVE: Post-jail interview with Pastor Tobias Tissen

EXCLUSIVE: Post-jail interview with Pastor Tobias Tissen

Unfortunately for Pastor Tobias and The Church of God Restoration in Steinbach, they are still subject to a court appearance which should take place on November 4.

Pastor Tobias Tissen is amongst the many pastors recently arrested here in Canada. This disturbing trend can be seen coast to coast, from the recent arrest of Pastor Phil Hutchings in New Brunswick, to the arrests of pastors Tim StephensJames Coates and Artur Pawlowski in Alberta.

Luckily today we’re not here to bring you the story of a man behind bars, as Pastor Tobias Tissen has been released after spending roughly 45 hours in custody.

Though this is good news for the Manitoba minister, it is not without any drawbacks.

Pastor Tobias was able to negotiate the conditions of his release, meaning while he’s not able to incite, organize, or invite anyone to an event that contravenes COVID-19 health regulations, he is able to perform regular church services alongside his duties as a pastor.

Unfortunately, Pastor Tobias and The Church of God Restoration in Steinbach are still subject to a court appearance, which is expected to take place on November 4. At that time, we will find out what happens in regards to the $1-million ticket that could be handed out.

Pastor Tobias is being represented by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

While Pastor Tobias is being defended by lawyers from the JCCF, a number of other pastors — and Canadians across the country — are being represented through, where Rebel News viewers can crowdfund the legal fees to help defend civil liberties — and get a charitable tax receipt while doing so, from our partners The Democracy Fund.

Gordon Watson’s Report on Fake News Media Smears of END THE LOCKDOWN Protesters

Gordon Watson’s Report on Fake News Media Smears of END THE LOCKDOWN Protesters

Victoria’s Inner Harbor on Oct 23rd was a pleasant scene.  The sun broke through at noon.  As the Carillon chimed I thought: “I guess I’m here by me-self today”  but a quorum soon arrived.   By 1 pm we had 60 warm bodies in good spirits, half a dozen of whom were holding the fort at the intersection.  NellyBelle and 10 of her VaxxFanatics stationed across the street.  The Grim Reaper came by. So, we compared notes — a reasonable sort of fellow, actually. 

Saturday was the high water mark so far for attention from the Powers_That_Be  to our continuing PROTESTations.    Assuredly, it won’t be the last.    The Timely Colonic *  devoted most of its front page to the apotheosis of Bonnie Henry.  Reporter Cindy E Harnett quotes a guy sneering at us,   as  “a mob”.   Also,  Saint Bonnie commending  Nell Saba –  provocatrix who’s shown up for the last couple of months, holding up her VACCINES SAVE LIVES sign who “ just very quietly and calmly puts her voice out there.”  Straight out of the Sol Alinsky playbook: Villains versus heroine. 

A few pages further-in,  atop the editorial page, was Raeside’s cartoon of us — his usual flat, talentless scrawl.   Never in the same league as the delicious, punchy genius of the real cartoonists of yore,   yet I’ll take it.  P T Barnum quipped: “I don’t care what you say about me. Just spell my name right”.   Meaning : following the tv hitpiece 2 weeks ago, the TC smear re anti-Lockdown protesters, gives away how much our GATHERINGS annoy the NDP administration.  Venal, yes,  but not stupid; they’re sensitive to resentment gathering against their INsanity.   

By the most amazing coincidence the frontpage of the Vancouver Sun on Saturday featured a photo of John Horgan. Inside,  a paean to this darling of “the Silent Majority”.   Oh yeah?   Were Mr Horgan able to muster the testicular wherewithal and join us, at our usual spot,  100 yards from the office of the Premier  –  he’d hear very different things being said aloud, about him,   than Lisa Cordesco reported in her puffpiece.

The capper, was one full page of type headed  “ANTIVAXXERS IGNORE INCONVENIENT TRUTHS”.   Daphne Braham pretending worry about the direction taken by Joseph Roberts’ magazine Common Ground  re the Covid thing.  Lobbing-in “holocaust deniers / white supremecists / Nazis” insinuation of guilt by association.   Supreme irony being >>> Braham’s smarm exemplifies the infamous quote by Goebbels

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.   The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.    It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,    for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie,    and thus by extension,   the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

One of our strengths, is,  we are immune from fear stoked by official lies called statistics …  GrandWitch Bonnie’s spellcasting chant of  “cases cases cases” does not work on us.  A propaganda outfall –  in this case, the Slum * – doesn’t print 2000 words just to fill grey space between the ads.  Thus Braham’s sophisticated smear of Roberts, pays us quite the compliment, signalling … anti-Vackzers are no small potatoes on the political gameboard.       * ‘local rags’  being = the Victoria Times Colonist. pathetic excuse for a newspaper in the capital city of the Province.   The Vancouver Sun … a long, long way down in the gutter from the days when it was a newspaper that mattered

Having been through the Pro-Life thing,  3 decades ago, I am sure the   kNeeDiPpers   are slithering-around behind the scenes,  fomenting trouble at street level,   contriving excuse for their “safety zones” around hospitals and schools.    The punchup on Oct 6 – in which someone  ( ostensibly on our side? )  took the bait and punched a guy – was ‘golden’ for purposes of justifying “no-free-speech-zones”. 

Revelation that Nell Saba’s sister, Rosa Saba, is a reporter for the Trawna Grope&Flail  was the clincher =  something wicked does indeed slouch this way out of Central Canada.   Having taken the federal subsidy disbursed to the “legacy media’ … let’s just call it what it is : a BRIBE …   the local rags are bound to play the tune called-for by their PAYmaster.   Our chorus of dissident voices may seem remote from the Family Compact which runs Central Canada, but there is no doubt Justin True-Dope and his pal Horgan are conniving to stifle dissent.   Doesn’t bother me a bit.  They will not prevail 

Meanwhile, we’re out there engaging the Electorate on Wednesdays and Saturdays at noon to 2, networking, comforting real people who have been devastated by the Horgan-ized crime family.   Such as this lady shown in the pic, a nurse, fired for conscientious objection to the poisoned needle,   still smiling after the shock of her career having been stolen from her. 

Gordon S Watson

Metchosin British Columbia October 24th 2021

Sat Oct 23 2021 Sylvia.jpg

Freedom Events in the Okanagan, October 27-31

Freedom Events in the Okanagan, October 27-31
Hello, Friends!
Next Rally: Wed. Oct. 27 Interior Health 505 Doyle Ave. 10:00 a.m. See Rally Info below
MEGA Rally Memories!Kelowna once again has sent a strong message to Bonnie the Commie and the BC Communist Gov’t – that we are not complying with your unconstitutional orders and we have the law on our side!Thank you so much to our wonderful speakers at this past Saturday’s Kelowna MEGA Rally, and the hundreds of people who showed in support of our freedoms. All four speakers, Tanya Gaw, Ted Kuntz, Dave Shearer, and Dave Menchinton, provided incredibly inspiring information and updates.
RCMP Opposition to Mandatory Vaccines is public few weeks ago, several anonymous Okanagan medical professionals sent two letters to Bonnie Henry exposing the flaws in the COVID-CON.“Open Letter to RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki”On Oct. 21, 2021, several RCMP officers have similarly sent an Open Letter to the RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki.This too, is supported by many sources that are provided, permitting all claims to be verified. Please forward to any RCMP officers you know, and have them sign it and send to the Commissioner. The RCMP union has already stated its opposition to mandatory vaccinations.
With over 560 members now, join us in our C.L.E.A.R. telegram group! Please remember: no foul language or vulgarity for any posts, keep posts relevant to today’s freedom issues, humour is fine, be respectful at all times, no government officials, agents or rep posts are accepted. Help us ensure all posts are verified for correctness.
CLEAR Telegram
COVID-19 Stats – UpdatedDeaths resulting from serious influenza cases are generally between 0.1-0.2%.Case fatality rates (CFR) promoted by Bonnie the Commie, are meaningless. Infection fatality rates (IFR) are important, especially where the PCR test has a 97% false positive rate!Analysis of the IFR shows it continues to be about the same as the flu virus, month after month!There is a pandemic – every gov’t in the world is lying to its own people!!!
B.C. a6f23959a8b14bfa989e3cda29297ded

Cases: 200 898 Deaths: 2 109 CFR 1.04%
Infections: 200 898 x 8 = 1 607 184 Deaths: 2 109 IFR 0.19%Canada:

1 700 000 cases 28 782 deaths = CFR .17
1 700 000 x 8 – 13 600 000 Deaths: 28 782 IFR 0.2%
756 Deaths/million = .075% mortality rate
Where are all the COVID-19 bodies? Pop. 5 170 000
Annual Deaths (July 1 – June 30)
2010-11—- 31 699
2011-12—- 32 256
2012-13—- 32 913
2013-14—- 33 155
2014-15—- 34 839
2015-16—- 35 585
2016-17—- 38 357
2017-18—- 38 128
2018-19—- 38 471
2019-20—- 38 927 – Historical Death Rate Data
Year — Death Rate–Growth rate
2021—–7.849 ——- .590%
2020—–7.803 ——- .580%
2019—–7.758 ——- .600%
2018—–7.712 ——- 1.070%
2017—–7.630 ——- 1.090%
2016—–7.548 ——- 1.110%
2015—–7.465 ——- 1.110%
2014—–7.383 ——- 1.120%Why is Canada’s death rate so much higher between 2014-2018, than it is with a COVID-19 pandemic allegedly happening?
Illusion of Freedom ZappaNothing more need be said
Upcoming RalliesOur regular weekly and Wed. rallies resume this week. Freedom is a multi-generational struggle – coupled with the war against our freedoms happening right now, this requires continued efforts to oppose all forms of COVID-19 restrictions.Please bring at least 3-5 friends and/or supporters to our rallies each week.Bring your signs!With other provinces passing stricter and stricter legislation, and BC close behind, we all have an obligation and need to spread the word about our weekly rallies. Now is NOT the time to leave our beautiful province, but to rally the troops around our cause. Our children and families deserve nothing less.

Wednesday Oct. 27, 2021 10:00 a.m.

Interior Health

505 Doyle Ave.
____Kelowma: Saturday Oct. 30, 2021 12:00 noon Stuart Park
______Vernon Rally Saturday, October 30, 2021 12:00 noon @ Polson Park
Say hi to Heather who is supporting the largest Northern Okanagan rallies.
______Kamloops Saturday October 30, 2021 12:00 noon @ Riverside Park
Say hi to Glen and Corally supporting the best rallies in the Kamloops area.

______Penticton Sun. Oct. 31, 2021 11:30 a.m. @ Warren & Main St.
Say hi to Mary-Lou supporting the largest rallies in the Southern Okanagan.
Tanya Gaw speaker at Kelowna Mega Rally, October 23

“For 20 Months, You’ve Been Scammed,” Tanya Gaw Tells Kelowna Mega Rally

“For 20 Months, You’ve Been Scammed,” Tanya Gaw Tells  Kelowna Mega Rally
KELOWNA. October 23, 2021.
“For 20 months, you’ve been scammed” star speaker Tanya Gaw told 300 cheering participants today at Kelowna’s participation in the Worldwide Freedom Rally. “The most important word today is ‘NO’. Sec. 52.1 of the Charter says that any law that is inconsistent with the Charter is of no force or effect” — referring particularly to forced vaccination mandates.

She gave an update on the ongoing persecution of Rolly’s Restaurant, a popular eatery in Hope, B.C. for 25 years. Co-owners Muriel Young and Marlene Abling were given 12 hours notice of an October 8 court hearing because they chose not to check patrons’ vaccine status. You must now be fully vaxxed to eat at a restaurant in British Columbia. They asked for an adjournment to retain counsel. In its stampede to judgement, the Court turned them down. Tanya Gaw offered to act as a representative. This request, too, was turned down, The Court denounced Rolly’s as “a  menace to the community” and ordered it closed. It’s business and liquor licences have been taken away.
Tanya Gaw said that those issuing compulsory masking of vaxxing orders must be held personally responsible. Her group Act4Canada  approaches businesses and boards of education and informs them of their liabilities. She says: “Employers are interfering with the bodily integrity of their employees when they force them to get the COVID vaccine. “They must be held personally responsible.,” she added.
The tactic is beginning to pay off. Some nervous school trustees are now hesitating about imposing masking or vaxxing on their staff and students.
Some months ago, B,C, Ferry fanatics wouldn’t let a mother and child return home because they were not masked.. “They are now showing more respect to their customers,” she said.
Canadians must find the courage to say “no”, she argued. “Governments didn’t take away our rights; we gave them away. And. according to Pulci Health Canada, vaccines cannot be mandated in Canada, You have rights to life, liberty and security. Know your rights,” she advised.
Tanya Gaw also made a special appeal to men.”Although I’m a feminist, I love men. Men, tap into your warrior spirit, stand up and lead!” C.L.E.A.R. leader Dave Lindsay, organizer of the weekly END THE LOCKDOWN rally in Kelowna, since April 2020, early on observed that almost two thirds of the attendees were women. “Where are the men?”  he asked.


In his remarks to the rally, Mr. Lindsay warned; “People are always trying to take your freedoms away. Standing up for those freedoms is the best legacy you can leave your children.”  The stepped up media attacks on the Kelowna protests show “Bonnie Henry is worried and, thus, is so opposed to us.”The truthers are having an effect. A doctor told Mr. Lindsay confidentially that only about 40 per cent of the people in Kelowna are fully vaccinated, far fewer than official claims.

Tanya Gaw, Act4Canada

Book Burning: Woke Canadian Schools Destroy Nearly 5,000 Books Deemed ‘Offensive’ to Indigenous Peoples,52

Book Burning: Woke Canadian Schools Destroy Nearly 5,000 Books Deemed ‘Offensive’ to Indigenous Peoples


FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailCopy LinkShareBreitbart

Schools in Ontario are facing backlash after burning or destroying books deemed offensive to First Nations, including classic comics such as Tintin and Asterix.

The book burning, labelled an act of “flame purification”, was first undertaken in 2019 by the Providence Catholic School Board, a French-language school board in southwestern Ontario that manages 23 primary schools and seven secondary schools.

According to a report from French-language broadcaster Radio Canada, the first incident saw books ceremonially burned, with the ashes then used as fertiliser to plant a tree. Other burnings were planned but halted due to the coronavirus pandemic.

“We bury the ashes of racism, discrimination, and stereotypes in the hope that we will grow up in an inclusive country where everyone can live in prosperity and security,” a video created by the school board for students said.

Suzy Kies, a so-called “custodian of indigenous knowledge”, defended the burning of the books, saying: “People panic over burning books, but we are talking about millions of books that have negative images of Indigenous people, that perpetuate stereotypes, that are really damaging and dangerous.”

However, more recent reports have alleged that Kies, who describes herself as “an urban Indigenous woman of Abenaki and Montagnais descent”, and has worked with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party as co-chair of its Aboriginal Commission, is actually not indigenous at all.

Radio Canada say they found that after searching historical records and consulting with First Nations councils, that Kies had absolutely no First Nations ancestors since 1780.

Dominique Ritchot, the coordinator of the French-Canadian Genealogical Society, said that Kies might have First Nations ancestors from the 17th century, a trait she shares with thousands of other French Canadians.  

Liberal Party leader and current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau commented on the book burnings, saying: “On a personal level, I would never agree to the burning of books.” But he also noted that it was not for non-indigenous people “to tell Indigenous people how they should feel or act to advance reconciliation”.

Trudeau relayed a similar message over the summer as dozens of Canadian churches were vandalised or set on fire in reaction to the alleged discovery of unmarked graves in Canadian residential schools.

Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole was less ambiguous in his comments, saying: “A Conservative government will be committed to reconciliation. But the road to reconciliation does not mean tearing down Canada. I strongly condemn the burning of books.”

Since the outrage over the destruction, the Providence Catholic School Board has announced it will pause burning books.

A spokesman for the board, Lyne Cossette, also expressed shock after learning that Ms Kies may not actually be indigenous, saying: “We were certain that Suzy Kies was of Indigenous descent… We had relied on her word.”

Self-Hating German Owners Impose Israel-First Party Line on Staff at POLITICO

Self-Hating German Owners Impose Israel-First Party Line on Staff at POLITICO

Following takeover, staff at US newspaper to be told to find a new job if they can’t support Israel

October 18, 2021 at 2:29 pm | Published in: AfricaAsia & AmericasIsraelMiddle EastNewsTunisiaUSA news stand is seen in New York, US on 30 October 2018 [ANGELA WEISS/AFP/Getty Images]A news stand is seen in New York, US on 30 October 2018 [ANGELA WEISS/AFP/Getty Images]October 18, 2021 at 2:29 pm367Shares

facebook sharing button
twitter sharing button
reddit sharing button
whatsapp sharing button
email sharing button
sharethis sharing button

Staff at the recently purchased American news agency, Politico, has been warned that they must abide by the parent company’s commitment to Israel or else find a new job, though they are not expected to sign a formal pledge in writing, as their German counterparts.

The message was communicated to the 500 staff of Politico, by Mathias Döpfner, chief executive of the Berlin-based company, Axel Springer, which said in August that it was buying the American news agency for more than $1 billion.

Döpfner, who has previously said that support for Israel is “a German duty,” is reported in the Haaretz telling staff at Politico that Axel Springer’s commitment to Israel is like “a constitution” and if hey did not like it, they should not work for the firm.

Politico staffers in the US, however, will not be required to sign a written commitment to these principles, as employees in Germany must, Döpfner said.

Staff are also expected to shun what Döpfner called activist journalism, which he said was helping polarize the United States and other countries.

In Germany, Axel Springer owns titles including tabloid, Bild, and the centre-right broadsheet, Die Welt. It has recently expanded greatly in the US, buying Business Insider for about $500 million and the business-based Morning Brew.

READ: The checkpoint between academic freedom and Israel needs to be lifted

Axel Springer’s commitment to Israel goes back to its eponymous founder, Axel Caesar Springer, who died in 1985 in what was then West Berlin. Known as the German Rupert Murdoch, Springer is said to have been resolutely pro-Israel.

Following Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Springer, who reportedly made a hasty visit to the occupation state while ordering his newspapers to cover the invasion obsessively, officially committed itself to upholding support for Israel’s existence as one of the values which he called the company’s “Essentials.”

Others include: standing up for freedom, the rule of law, democracy, rejection of political and religious extremism and all forms of racism and sexual discrimination and a united Europe.

During Israel’s 11-day bombardment of Gaza in May, which resulted in 256 Palestinian deaths and over 2,000 injuries to the civilian population, Döpfner ordered the Israeli flag to be flown, alongside those of Germany and the European Union, outside the company’s Berlin headquarters.

Justifying his decision, Döpfner is reported as saying to staff in a companywide conference call: “I think, and I’m being very frank with you, a person who has an issue with an Israeli flag being raised for one week here, after anti-Semitic demonstrations, should look for a new job.”CategoriesAfricaAsia & AmericasIsraelMiddle EastNewsTunisiaUS12 Comments

Sask. gov’t readies psychiatric hospital for Covid regulation refusniks

The old Soviet system made ample use of psychiatric hospitals to deal with ‘difficult individuals’ or refuseniks. [a person who refuses to follow orders or obey the law, especially as a protest.]

The official explanation was that no sane person would be against socialism [Covid mask/vax regulations].

Oct 12, 2021 | 3:17 PM

The Saskatchewan Health Authority now says it is putting together a COVID Enforcement Team. The group will be made up of mostly retired police officers who have special constable status. [deputised KGB or Cheka]?

The information was conveyed in the most recent Physicians Town Hall Meeting. Medical Health Officer Dr. Johnmark Opondo says the purpose of the CET is to enforce public health measures, in particular proof of vaccination non-compliance at businesses that are not typically regulated by public health inspectors. They will also be charged with enforcing masking public health measures.

In addition to a COVID Enforcement Team and an on-line form or phone number to report on fellow citizens [make snitching a patriotic duty?], the government is also setting up a secure isolation site [psychiatric prison hospital?] for those deemed needing to be isolated by a medical health officer.

“Public Health Inspectors and police, once the Medical Health Officer has signed a form for secure isolation, will be involved in assisting and transporting and moving people into the secure isolation site [psychiatric prison hospital?].”

This site, expected to be ready in the next three weeks, is going to be located at the Saskatchewan Hospital in North Battleford [this is the largest psychiatric hospital in the province].

They refer to those sent to the secure isolation site as clients, not detainees [or prisoners]. However they will be there under a detention order.

ref: COVID Enforcement Team and Secure Location for COVID Isolation

Dr. Johnmark Opondo, Architect of Incarcerating COVID Resisters to Nuthouses

Canada’s Latest Political Prisoner & Pastor in Prison: New Brunswick Christian Pastor Jailed for Not Enforcing COVID Restrictions at Worship — Yes, in New Brunswick, Not North Korea

New Brunswick Christian Pastor Jailed for Not Enforcing COVID Restrictions at Worship — Yes, in New Brunswick, Not North Korea

How many more pastors have to be hauled off to jail and churches forcibly closed (or destroyed) before Canadians wake up to the religious persecution happening in their own backyard?

Pastor Phil Hutchings of His Tabernacle Family Church in Saint John, New Brunswick, was arrested on October 15 for disobeying a previous court order requiring him to enforce current public health mandates.Those mandates may prohibit unvaccinated individuals from entering the building, and if a church chooses not to check for vaccination status, the rules forbid singing and require congregants to wear masks, social distance, and contact trace inside the church.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees certain civil liberties to all Canadians, but Section 1 of the Charter also guarantees limitations on them.Is it reasonable to treat healthy Canadians as if they are sick and assume unvaccinated individuals are carriers of disease?

I was in Saint John, New Brunswick, last Friday at the Saint John Law Courts, where a group of church supporters gathered to pray for the incarcerated pastor.Click here to watch.Pastor Phil is expected to remain in jail until his hearing on October 22.We are currently helping Pastor Phil by fighting his fines through, and we have offered to support his family with his civil matters to lift this burden off of them and the church.We’ll have more to report after tomorrow’s hearing, but in the meantime, can you please sign our petition at to demand the government ends its persecution of the pastor.
Yours truly,Mocha
Chief Videographer

Rebel NewsP.S. Pastor Phil is currently being held for exercising his God-given and Charter-enshrined right to worship and gather with his congregants in direct contravention of New Brunswick’s COVID restrictions. His arrest is just the latest in the rapidly growing list of persecuted pastors and churches in Canada. If you would like to support Pastor Phil by signing our petition, please visit